[FOM] An argument for V = L

[Colin McLarty]

> Writing about his view that V=L might be more attractive in most
> mathematics than its negation, On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Harvey
> Friedman <hmflogic at gmail.com> concluded:
>
> > Of course, there is a monkey wrench in all this, particularly if the
> following Thesis is verified - and we are not quite there yet.
> >
> > THESIS. Corresponding to every interesting level in the interpretation
> hierarchy referred to above, there is a Pi01 sentence of clear mathematical
> interest and simplicity. I.e., which is demonstrably equivalent to the
> consistency of formal systems corresponding to that level, with the
> equivalence proved in EFA (or even less). There are corresponding
> formulations in terms of interpretations and conservative extensions.
> >
> > Then what?
>
>
> Why is this a "monkey wrench"?  Why is it not just a reason to continue
> pursuing low complexity sentences of clear mathematical interest equivalent
> to consistency of various formal systems?
>

best, Colin

> Harvey Friedman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20140902/de4fd8a8/attachment.html>